Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing concrete behavior: the completed date is set to now, and Funraise may additionally log an interaction as a side effect depending on task automation. That side-effect warning is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey. It stops short of saying what happens when the task is already complete, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short clauses with the operation class front-loaded ('WRITE:'), the core effect second, the side-effect caveat parenthetical, and the endpoint last. Nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter mutation with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the important missing behavior (timestamping and possible interaction logging). Only the treatment of an already-completed task is unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter task_id, so the description should have compensated. It only exposes the id implicitly through the 'PUT /api/v1/task/{id}/complete' path and never states that task_id is a positive integer identifier of an existing task.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('mark a task complete') and prefixes it with 'WRITE:' so the agent immediately knows the mutation class. It is clearly distinct from siblings like funraise_get_task or funraise_create_task, though it never names an alternative to disambiguate further.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the tool is used when a task is finished. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it, no prerequisite (e.g. confirming the task exists via funraise_get_task first), and no exclusion of alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.